Postmodernism as an ‘ism’

You here it everywhere, nowadays. “Postmodernists”. The irony of it is seldom noticed, so I will go through it here.
The movement now named “postmodernism” was a collection of artists, linguists and philosophers, most famously Foucault and Derrida, who rejected holistic definitions of concepts.
Foucault engaged in an analysis of ‘power’. It was thought, or so Foucault claimed, that power was possessed by an individual. Not so. Through laborious demonstrations, the Frenchman proved that power wasn’t within an individual, but within the structures around them. The architecture of a lecture hall, intentionally built in a diamond shape with both walls serving as arrows to the lecturer. The power is implied in the shape of the hall. The power of a professor does not belong to him, it belongs to the building he’s in, it’s name: university… Moreover, the authority placed on him by this academic institution, and the social convention of respecting your elders, and your teachers. All these things compose the power usually considered as the teacher’s belonging. But it isn’t within him, but given to him, it’s allowed, tolerated, and encouraged. But it is just as easily given as it is taken away, and thus it’s doesn’t belong to him. He has it, but it isn’t his.
That’s an example of a postmodernist argument. You take an idea, and shatter it, thereby forcing a reconstruction of the concept, it’s foundation now in pieces. As Foucault writes: “ I don’t write a book so that it will be the final word; I write a book so that other books are possible”. What is here meant is critical. No position is assumed of itself. Though it may seem that Foucault has offered his own definition, if it were to become accepted he would gladly attack this one too. The postmodernist spirit is that of an intellectual adversary, always attempting to destroy what you’ve built.
Now, that’s as frustrating as it is useful. But it, importantly, assumes no doctrine of its own. Therein lies the irony of calling someone a “postmodernist”. A postmodernist, insofar as he is a postmodernist, claims nothing, clutches at no truths.
So why this confusion? Why are so many called postmodernists? It’s certainly not a matter of stupidity, as I have often heard. Rather, it’s a confusion between two intertwined spirits. The postmodernist spirit is contrarian, but the method through which the French, most famously Foucault, argue against holistic conceptions, composes another spirit. After all, I can prove you wrong in many different ways. This secondary spirit, this method, is Marxism.
A clarification of the term will prove useful. I don’t mean communism. Here, we’re talking about Marx’s method of understanding the world. By describing 19th century Europe as a class-struggle, Marx offered two reasonings that have become quite common. First, the interaction of groups as as a combat for power. Second, seeing an entire society as an this combat between two groups.
This has some virulent implications that go beyond the scope of this article, this clarification is relevant if only because Foucault, the most famous post-modernist, spent a large part of his life as a Marxist. If we recall the first reasoning, we see that seeing interactions in terms of their power relations had a profound effect on Foucault’s work. In fact, by arguing against power as the possession of individuals, he unintentionally extended the scope of it’s application. Now, Marxist wouldn’t only see the Bourgeoisie as the oppressors, but the structures they impose. Capitalism was the original Marxist target, but now oppression was institutionalized. A social institution could be an oppressor, or a social convention, or a statue, all structures held within them power, power those with authority used to abuse those without it.
I won’t impose my opinion on this conception more harshly than I have by my description. That is not the purpose of this article. Rather, the purpose is to clarify the meaning of “postmodernism” by describing it’s spirit, contrarian in nature, and explain what is it understandably mistaken for, marxism.
For, if the postmodernist reasoning teaches us anything, it’s that our words should be clear and honest.
